View Full Version : Nothing wrong with looking! Not anymore...?
Thoughts on this?
I was hanging out with a friend of mine, who is what most people would call a "Social Justice Warrior." He knows I disagree with him on some things. We do discuss some hot button issues, believe it or not.
The other day we were outside a cafe enjoying beverages and talking about classes, social issues, romance, therapists, and all sorts of stuff.
A beautiful black woman with eye-catching curves walked by. And I gave her a quick "check out." It was brief and fairly subtle. But when my eyes returned to my friend and our conversation he gave me a very disapproving expression.
So I asked: "Do you think it is unethical for a man to 'check out' a woman he finds attractive?"
His answer was a resounding and firm "yes." His reasoning was that "the person -- usually a woman-- who is checked out does not give consent to have their attractiveness appreciated."
My personal feeling is that in a free and open society people are allowed to look at each other.
They knew you'd be coming to visit someday, so Middle Easterners veiled their women to prevent this.
This friend asked this: "How would you feel about gay men checking you out?"
I said: "When I was young, thin, and handsome they did! And I did not care."
I think it's pretty natural for males to check out female physiques even though it is not popular to say so. I think you just have to be really discrete about it these days, i.e. behind sunglasses lest you supposedly offend someone. I recall as a young woman that it was pretty normal for men to whistle at women who walked by. I never liked that sort of attention but it would never happen nowadays.
I think it's pretty natural for males to check out female physiques even though it is not popular to say so. I think you just have to be really discrete about it these days, i.e. behind sunglasses lest you supposedly offend someone. I recall as a young woman that it was pretty normal for men to whistle at women who walked by. I never liked that sort of attention but it would never happen nowadays.
It seems really rare, but I don't run with a crowd that would do that.
Is there some set of guidelines I can follow so as to not cause offense...?
Is there some set of guidelines I can follow so as to not cause offense...? I could ask him, like if he thought up some guidelines, what those would be? Might that help you on this?
I could ask him, like if he thought up some guidelines, what those would be? Might that help you on this?
That sure would be helpful. I am often out, minding my own business, and someone walks across my field of vision. Should I avert my eyes, or is that also problematic?
It's so confusing these days.
That sure would be helpful. I am often out, minding my own business, and someone walks across my field of vision. Should I avert my eyes, or is that also problematic?
It's so confusing these days.
It might be best to always look down when you are in public.
I come from the old lady from some other era side viewpoint but wonder why so many women display their curves so openly if they don't wish for the attention.
I come from the old lady from some other era side viewpoint but wonder why so many women display their curves so openly if they don't wish for the attention.
That kind of comment would be called "blaming the victim." If a man said something like that he would be shunned and condemned.
Well it doesn't make sense to me knowing that most men like to look and always have. Modern life confuses me sometimes though - actually quite often.
It matters a lot HOW a man looks at a woman, at least to this woman! A quick appreciative glance is a pleasing tribute, but it creeps me out to have a blatant ogle. If the gaze runs up and down my body, that's yucky.
If you walk around with your eyes down all the time you will find change on the ground and be able to scoop it up before other people notice it.
If you walk around with your eyes down all the time you will find change on the ground and be able to scoop it up before other people notice it.
That is hilarious!:laff:
Over the years, I have been ogled, whistled at, etc., and sometimes felt very uncomfortable.
Well, I came across some workmen yesterday. One older man openly studied me, one ignored me focused on his work, another was quietly friendly with a cheerful grin and, the fourth a very young fellow, was following the lead of his team but unsure of what to do.
There had been a large transmission fluid spill that was being cleaned up by this crew so they were not normally in this neighbourhood - work crew with neglected oral care being my first impression, to be honest.
i complimented their industry and conscientious care in their cleaning and inquired a little on the steps. Before i left them to continue my walk with my dog, I felt comfortable and respected because I had shared respect with them.
i think it comes down to each person's mental perception of others. If you see them as potential conquests, victims, friends, enemies, etc., that is what they will react to. We underestimate the instant mental connection that we have with others, often based on past perceptions which may be correct or completely erroneous.
Soto answer the question, do you see women as something different existing for your benefit or as a valuable part of life to be respected? I make eye contact with all that agree to do so and smile. I am in charge of my thinking and behaviour.
iris lilies
7-2-17, 7:45am
They knew you'd be coming to visit someday, so Middle Easterners veiled their women to prevent this.
Omg this was funny!
iris lilies
7-2-17, 7:49am
That is hilarious!:laff:
She's on a roll on thismthread.
iris lilies
7-2-17, 7:51am
It matters a lot HOW a man looks at a woman, at least to this woman! A quick appreciative glance is a pleasing tribute, but it creeps me out to have a blatant ogle. If the gaze runs up and down my body, that's yucky.
Yes, this is what I think. Nicely said.
It matters a lot HOW a man looks at a woman, at least to this woman! A quick appreciative glance is a pleasing tribute, but it creeps me out to have a blatant ogle. If the gaze runs up and down my body, that's yucky.
I typically study everyone around me, man, woman, or other, to evaluate what weapons they might be carrying, their general level of fitness and alertness, their likely level of training, their points of attention/intent, where they place on the predator/prey scale, and so on.
This may be mistaken for "checking out".
ToomuchStuff
7-4-17, 4:14am
I typically study everyone around me, man, woman, or other, to evaluate what weapons they might be carrying, their general level of fitness and alertness, their likely level of training, their points of attention/intent, where they place on the predator/prey scale, and so on.
This may be mistaken for "checking out".
And may form a prejudice.>8)
I typically study everyone around me, man, woman, or other, to evaluate what weapons they might be carrying, their general level of fitness and alertness, their likely level of training, their points of attention/intent, where they place on the predator/prey scale, and so on.
This may be mistaken for "checking out".
Now I'm really creeped out!
I typically study everyone around me, man, woman, or other, to evaluate what weapons they might be carrying, their general level of fitness and alertness, their likely level of training, their points of attention/intent, where they place on the predator/prey scale, and so on.
This may be mistaken for "checking out".
So everyone is a potential threat to you? At what point do you let your guard down? Just curious.
Williamsmith
7-5-17, 8:58am
So everyone is a potential threat to you? At what point do you let your guard down? Just curious.
I think Catherine, you have the answer within your question. In order to "check out" a person in the context of the OP one necessarily lets their "guard down", in the context of your question.
The human species is uniquely predatory, seeking always to establish a pecking order....sometimes by education, perseverance or self improvement but sometimes by force, coercion or terrorism. If a person doesn't want to be like sheep, they have to act like a sheepdog. And the foremost defense is an awareness of ones environment and the presence of sources of threats.
If you watch a whitetail deer for just a brief time, you will see this demonstrated constantly. A buck in rut has let his guard down and often pays for it with his life.
"I wasn't ogling you. I was assessing your threat level."
ToomuchStuff
7-5-17, 9:13am
"I wasn't ogling you. I was assessing your threat level."
If they are staring at you long enough for that, they aren't ogling, they are intimidating you, as you are deemed a threat. (had a cop do that to me, until he realized where he knew me from, and it wasn't in a professional sense)
"I wasn't ogling you. I was assessing your threat level."
Haha.. That's great.
Williamsmith, with your background, I'm sure you are in alignment with bae in terms of assessing strangers. And I agree that in nature, that's the way it goes. To your point about the deer, I was taking a walk in the dark around the park that abuts my home, and in the middle of the baseball field between the school and my house, there were a couple of deer--on their way, I'm sure, to my house to see if I had left our vegetable garden open for their dinner (I hadn't).
So we did have a bit of a face-off. They didn't feel too threatened by me apparently because they just sauntered off in the other direction.
I have not had the experience often of needing to be hypervigilant about my surroundings, so it seems odd to me that that's a natural response for many people. Maybe it's a gender thing? Am I less aware and guarded because I depend on DH to take on that role? I generally approach people as friendly, but that does depend on the situation. Even walking through our neighborhood park at night, while the deer are wary of me, I'm wary of people who might be loitering there in the darkness. Given I don't own a gun, or carry any weapons or deterrents on these little walks, I'm vulnerable, but I don't like to feel like I'm under contant threat. Maybe I'm careless, or naive, but I'd rather approach life with reasonable openness. So far I haven't had any need to be otherwise, but if I had had your experiences, I'm sure I'd t think differently.
Williamsmith
7-5-17, 10:44am
In any society, there are members who embody the role of caretaker or protector. The rest can enjoy their lives without feeling they are under constant threat. It is part of the function of abundant societies. Some threat access so all the others can ogle. I do one or the other depending on my state of mind. But never both at the same time. An ogle is an assessment of a different kind.
So everyone is a potential threat to you?
Everyone is a potential threat, or issue, to me, and to others around them, yes.
At what point do you let your guard down? Just curious.
I don't really. It's not really "keeping my guard up", it's simply situational awareness. When something "surprising" happens, I'm often not surprised, and can calmly proceed to deal with the situation instead of losing important time with confusion and shock. I could, for example, be at a nice quiet dinner party, and one of my dinner companions could drop from a heart attack and require immediate action - it's handy not to stand around for a minute or two wondering what happened and what to do about it.
Teacher Terry
7-5-17, 2:01pm
To constantly be on guard is a sad way to live your life. I have a good friend whose Dad taught her to do this and we took a trip to Europe and she really could not relax. Also if you are trained to deal with medical emergencies you don't need to be on constant guard to be able to handle one. Your training should automatically just kick in.
To constantly be on guard is a sad way to live your life. I have a good friend whose Dad taught her to do this and we took a trip to Europe and she really could not relax. Also if you are trained to deal with medical emergencies you don't need to be on constant guard to be able to handle one. Your training should automatically just kick in.
Um. No.
I was innocent and trusted the whole world. Then I became a psych nurse. Now I'm cautious and ready ... but I'm still relaxed. I'm just more aware of people around me and more ready to protect myself.
I don't think this is a bad thing. I'm more realistic now.
I would think that pretending I was living in a Robert Ludlum novel all the time would get pretty tedious. If I avoid the more obvious risks, I like my chances being reasonably oblivious. If a ninja pounces on me in Dairy Queen I’ll just have to live with the consequences.
Williamsmith
7-5-17, 4:43pm
I would think that pretending I was living in a Robert Ludlum novel all the time would get pretty tedious. If I avoid the more obvious risks, I like my chances being reasonably oblivious. If a ninja pounces on me in Dairy Queen I’ll just have to live with the consequences.
Im not so much worried about the ninja's and attack specialists.......I would just hate to be embarrassed by having a rank ametuer get the one up on me. Besides, it is kinda nice to now have the advantage of citizen camouflage to blend in to the crowd.
Im not so much worried about the ninja's and attack specialists.......I would just hate to be embarrassed by having a rank ametuer get the one up on me. Besides, it is kinda nice to now have the advantage of citizen camouflage to blend in to the crowd.
Ditto!
One of the things that's kind of neat about being an older woman is that your physical self become mostly invisible to the male species.
ApatheticNoMore
7-6-17, 1:43pm
There are rather ordinary women (and they have to flaunt it to get attention because they fall completely in the average (by average I don't mean overweight or anything I just mean lacking "dangerous curves". But there is nothing wrong with average, it is good enough in life). And there are those a few standard deviations from average on some measures, who couldn't necessarily hide being well endowed in some way IF THEY TRIED, no matter what they wore (and so "don't dress so slutty" is useless advice there). Even *I* stare at a booty like that (and hello I'm female, in a relationship with a guy). For more ordinary women: dress and act super conservatively and you probably won't get that much attention at all applies and somewhat regardless of age.
One of the things that's kind of neat about being an older woman is that your physical self become mostly invisible to the male species.
I loved being invisible--so refreshing.
Then I became lame, and suddenly, apparently, I'm uber-visible. People rush at me from all sides (especially people older than I) offering assistance. Gah. Yesterday an older woman begged me to let her help load my car with the groceries I had just bought. Then she hugged me. WTF! I'm not a hugger, let alone a huggee. I want my invisibility cloak back!
I think there is a certain age when women cease to see potential in a man and they see that what he is is what he will always be. This is commonly called "The Wall." And for men is happens around 37. This probably explains why it is much harder for me to get a date now, then when I was 33 and I could get multiple dates in a week without trying.
Williamsmith
7-6-17, 6:24pm
I think there is a certain age when women cease to see potential in a man and they see that what he is is what he will always be. This is commonly called "The Wall." And for men is happens around 37. This probably explains why it is much harder for me to get a date now, then when I was 33 and I could get multiple dates in a week without trying.
UL ...all you need is a health insurance card that covers spouses. Instant suitor!
UL ...all you need is a health insurance card that covers spouses. Instant suitor!
I have that. My job also gives half-off tuition for a university education through the doctoral level for a spouse.
UL ...all you need is a health insurance card that covers spouses. Instant suitor!
I've found that if I appear wealthy, even if wearing a wedding ring, out come the sharks.
If I appear to be a hillbilly, no takers.
I've found that if I appear wealthy, even if wearing a wedding ring, out come the sharks.
If I appear to be a hillbilly, no takers.
I know am a wacky cross between country boy, organic intellectual, and workin' schlub.
Williamsmith
7-6-17, 6:31pm
I have that. My job also gives half-off tuition for a university education through the doctoral level for a spouse.
Well, you simply aren't frequenting the right places. Enough complaining. You might try Russia or Romania.....they make very attentive spouses and can usually be gotten for the fraction of the cost of an American.
Williamsmith
7-6-17, 6:32pm
I've found that if I appear wealthy, even if wearing a wedding ring, out come the sharks.
If I appear to be a hillbilly, no takers.
In my neck of the woods......the opposite holds true. Rich people are for robbing....not marrying.
In my neck of the woods......the opposite holds true. Rich people are for robbing....not marrying. LOL!!!
Well, you simply aren't frequenting the right places. Enough complaining. You might try Russia or Romania.....they make very attentive spouses and can usually be gotten for the fraction of the cost of an American. Sounds like a good deal!
My buddy the other day was telling me to go to Japan. Apparently he thinks I would do quite well over there.
In my neck of the woods......the opposite holds true. Rich people are for robbing....not marrying.
In this case, I think the motivations are the same.
In this case, I think the motivations are the same.:laff: and :treadmill:
and :doh:
Having one's own money is very freeing.
My beloved was about 45 when he succumbed to my charm. :~) He made slightly less money than I did. Predatory dating, seeing another human being as a sinecure or a servant, strikes me as repulsive.
You could hang out around the deportation section of your local ICE office. Then you don't have to pay for the picture bride's flight here. Just make sure she does not want an anchor baby, because then she won't need you.
You could hang out around the deportation section of your local ICE office. Then you don't have to pay for the picture bride's flight here. Just make sure she does not want an anchor baby, because then she won't need you.
How is this not getting flagged by the forum censors?
iris lilies
7-6-17, 10:02pm
How is this not getting flagged by the forum censors?
Hunh?
--forum censor
I think there is a certain age when women cease to see potential in a man and they see that what he is is what he will always be. This is commonly called "The Wall." And for men is happens around 37.
Hmm. I was much more popular with women at 40 (when I divorced, so I can't speak to 37) than I ever was before.
Ironically, I think it is that women "cease to see potential in a man and they see that what he is is what he will always be". I dated several women who had married/were in long-term relationships with Excitement Guy or Sensitive Quiet Guy or Cowboy and it turned out to not work out well in real life. So when things fell apart, they were no longer looking for a project ("I can fix him!") or higher highs (and lower lows). Instead, they wanted someone who, certainly, was fun to be with and interesting but also was emotionally mature, financially secure, and not prone to wild swings one way or the other. IOW, someone like me, who had never been Excitement Guy. Stability and consistency, I think, wear far better at 37-40 than it does at 21-25.
Not saying this is your issue, UL. It's just my experience in the world.
Or I peaked late. Who can say? :)
ToomuchStuff
7-7-17, 12:57am
How is this not getting flagged by the forum censors?
Hunh?
--forum censor
Exactly what I am wondering.
"anchor baby" This is a very offensive slur.
This is a very offensive slur.
Is there a list of such terms that the "forum censor" can consult?
Hmm. I was much more popular with women at 40 (when I divorced, so I can't speak to 37) than I ever was before.
Good on you, amigo! Being popular with the ladies is an excellent feeling. :)
Ironically, I think it is that women "cease to see potential in a man and they see that what he is is what he will always be".
What I meant by women seeing potential in a man was that they say how his success trajectory was going upward or likely to go upward. When I was 33 women likely thought I could go on to do something more than be a low-level government worker who makes more than $47k. But at 37 ("The Wall" for men), women think: "This guy is who he is; he'll be working this job or one like it, or maybe one worse, for life and he'll probably not breach a $50k a year income."
I dated several women who had married/were in long-term relationships with Excitement Guy or Sensitive Quiet Guy or Cowboy and it turned out to not work out well in real life. So when things fell apart, they were no longer looking for a project ("I can fix him!") or higher highs (and lower lows). Instead, they wanted someone who, certainly, was fun to be with and interesting but also was emotionally mature, financially secure, and not prone to wild swings one way or the other. IOW, someone like me, who had never been Excitement Guy. Stability and consistency, I think, wear far better at 37-40 than it does at 21-25.
Sure, many women when they were young conflated potential and "I can fix him!"
But I think I could be a lot more popular with women at this stage in life if I was willing to take care of all the kids they had with Mr. Excitement (or with several Mr. Excitements). Of course a woman who is 30-40 who has kids wants Mr. Reliable with a steady job (even if he makes only $47k) and a steady temperament. She is trying to find someone who will be a good provider and partner in raising her kids because Mr. Excitement thinks working hard is a drag and raising kids is boring.
The problem with this arrangement (for me) is that I want to be loved firstly for who I am, not what I can provide financially and by my labor. The other thing is, I will admit, that it is a real punch to my ego -- "She had all that hot, wild fun time with Mr. Excitement; now it is the boring, laborious years with me -- working, paying bills, taking her kids to soccer games, piano lessons, chess club, etc. making dinner and packing lunches for her kids, etc."
Mr. Excitement will have gotten the passionate version of her, while I get the difficult obligations.
Not saying this is your issue, UL. It's just my experience in the world. Feel free to speculate on my issue.
Or I peaked late. Who can say? :) Peaking late is probably better than peaking early. I think I peaked in college, maybe in graduate school. So, in my 20s. And I have a few friends from the old neighborhood who peaked in senior year of high school. Their lives have been downhill ever since.
Is there a list of such terms that the "forum censor" can consult?
I have said far, far less offensive things on here and been threatened with removal.
Now, I am not saying this person should be threatened or taken to task by the authorities. I am wondering why there is an incredibly inconsistency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/is-anchor-baby-a-derogatory-term-a-history-of-the-debate/?utm_term=.fdbc0d0b788e
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/is-anchor-baby-a-derogatory-term-a-history-of-the-debate/?utm_term=.fdbc0d0b788e
You are appealing to an authority?
"Anchor baby" was used all the time by legitimate news sources when I lived in Texas. The terminology may be offensive but it is the reality there for many illegal immigrant women wanting to make sure they have that babe in the US.
"Anchor baby" was used all the time by legitimate news sources when I lived in Texas. The terminology may be offensive but it is the reality there for many illegal immigrant women wanting to make sure they have that babe in the US.
People move all over the world for all sorts of reasons. American citizenship is seen as a great benefit. Back in 2015, the LA times ran a story about wealthy Chinese women coming to the US to give birth in maternity tourism:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-asian-anchor-babies-wealthy-chinese-20150826-story.html
The same could be said for the modern equivalent of the Chinese picture brides, the Russian and Romanian women that are discussed here.
We looked into getting an Irish passport for my husband as one grandfather was born in England, and his mother said the other was born in Ireland. (She was, alas, mistaken.) We wanted to work in Europe. So the putative Irish grandfather would have been the "anchor grandfather," I guess.
iris lilies
7-7-17, 11:00am
[swear words redacted] UL, your blanket condemnationt of what "women" think and want in men is insulting. We do not have a single, monolithic thought.
When was dating back in the day, I was interested in a man who was good with money, which meant I cared more about how much he kept, and far less about how much he made. As far as jobs and salary, I looked for men who liked their jobs and were even energized by them. Back then I thought that if someone made $15,000 that was a perfectly fine amount. That is $30,000 in today's dollars. As it turned out, DH didnt even make that much. He was a graduate assistant in a graduate program at a University.
iris lilies
7-7-17, 11:24am
I have said far, far less offensive things on here and been threatened with removal.
Now, I am not saying this person should be threatened or taken to task by the authorities. I am wondering why there is an incredibly inconsistency.
Even the Washington Post says the term is "offensive." and uses the quotes. The quotes mean something. The Post also says:
Overall, the folks that have argued that "anchor baby" is a slur seem to have won.
notice the qualifying "seem" word, it has meaning here.
But I am not really arguing whather or not the term is offensive. I accept without arguement that is it highly offensive to some, somewhat offensive to others, and to others merely an apt short hand term for an immigration concept. It doesnt necessarily wear hard on all of our ears.
This isnt something I consider worthy of moderation. This isnt a place where we can be assured of no offense. I tend to save moderation for personal name-calling types of interaction. Now, if you had called someone "an anchor baby producing, food stamp consuming welfare queen" then that is a personal attack that needs moderation. Blatent personal name calling is just dumb and not acceptable.
I think it is an excellent discussion point, this one of moderation. Thank you for bringing it up.
[swear words redacted] UL, your blanket condemnationt of what "women" think and want in men is insulting. We do not have a single, monolithic thought.
When was dating back in the day, I was interested in a man who was good with money, which meant I cared more about how much he kept, and far less about how much he made. As far as jobs and salary, I looked for men who liked their jobs and were even energized by them. Back then I thought that if someone made $15,000 that was a perfectly fine amount. That is $30,000 in today's dollars. As it turned out, DH didnt even make that much. He was a graduate assistant in a graduate program at a University.
I've never been interested in achievement much, and I peaked around 19. I'm taking notes for my next life...:~)
I've always judged men on their entertainment value--can they make me laugh? On kindness and tolerance--no criticism or "clever" snark, please. And on their ability to take care of themselves financially. There are other considerations, of course. But I'm the authority figure in my life, and I like it that way.
iris lilies
7-7-17, 12:00pm
I've never been interested in achievement much, and I peaked around 19. I'm taking notes for my next life...:~)
I've always judged men on their entertainment value--can they make me laugh? On kindness and tolerance--no criticism or "clever" snark, please. And on their ability to take care of themselves financially. There are other considerations, of course. But I'm the authority figure in my life, and I like it that way.
Oh certanly, my financial criteria was all about "can they take care of themselves financially." But also blowing money made me nervous. I would have rather had a boyfriend making $15,000 and saving $2,000 than someme making $50,000 and savinf $2,000.
I've always judged men on their entertainment value--can they make me laugh? On kindness and tolerance--no criticism or "clever" snark, please. .
Yes! I was thinking "respectful"--I think that became of the utmost important when I encountered husband number 2--he was very respectful of people and a kind person, at a very deep level. That was such a draw, as my first husband was an abuser.
ApatheticNoMore
7-7-17, 12:43pm
UL, your blanket condemnation of what "women" think and want in men is insulting. We do not have a single, monolithic thought.
+ 1 plus it's different depending.
If a woman actually is seeking kids then the good provider thing might be more relevant (don't like it? yea well obviously don't date women looking for kids. Maybe if we had Scandinavian style paid child leave it wouldn't happen, so how about you go advocate for that instead of bashing women basically for being women. Or at least support for part-time work etc. so women AND men could more easily work part-time when raising children)
As for what women not looking for kids want, it's hard to see another human being suffer financially, it's hard to comfort them when they are worried about having no future financially, and worried a lot. You want to just have a weekend having fun, forgetting about the troubles of work and all that (because it is after-all the weekend) but they can't. You want to take vacations together but they don't get any paid time off etc.. Hard to say how awful blue collar work can be in this country, no vacation time, no overtime, little sick leave, abusive workplaces etc..
So maybe consider that women might just not want to volunteer to take on a world second-hand economic pain (that isn't even their own), and that may be something, but really a government job is not economic pain at all, it's a steady if boring paycheck, the steadiest there is.
How would one define being able to take care of themselves financially anyway? Is it just "current jobs wages are enough to pay the bills"? So living in mom's basement with no job is out obviously. Or are we defining it as much more than this? One can have a job with wages enough to pay the bills and a lot of economic uncertainty about the future if it's kind of dead-end, low paying, blue collar, exploitative, long uncompensated hours etc.
You are appealing to an authority?
No. For one thing, the Washington Post is hardly an "authority" on anything. But by all means, carry on.
I have said far, far less offensive things on here and been threatened with removal.
Yes, that was during your "troll the other members" phase. Once you were advised of consequences and remedies, the problem mostly went away.
Surely you see the difference.
Oh certanly, my financial criteria was all about "can they take care of themselves financially." But also blowing money made me nervous. I would have rather had a boyfriend making $15,000 and saving $2,000 than someme making $50,000 and savinf $2,000.
We both 'waste" money in different ways, but I'm the profligate one in our relationship. I'm pretty good at not going overboard, though.
Tybee--yes, kindness trumps status every time, for me.
I must have been naive, but I never even considered a man's income. I was attracted to men who had a passion for something (and still am). And many times it takes a lot of fortitude and ambition to make our passions happen which is also an attractive trait.
Yes, that was during your "troll the other members" phase. Once you were advised of consequences and remedies, the problem mostly went away.
Surely you see the difference. Not really. One censor's "trolling" is another man's thought-provoking question. )
I never thought my beloved had a passion for anything, until I realized his passion is people.
It never occurred to me that was a thing; the idea is foreign to me.
iris lilies
7-7-17, 8:05pm
I must have been naive, but I never even considered a man's income. I was attracted to men who had a passion for something (and still am). And many times it takes a lot of fortitude and ambition to make our passions happen which is also an attractive trait.
All of thatbis true, and well said.
Its not that I focused on how much anyne made, but I will admit to prioitizing any potenial mate trait included being sensible about money. And as it turns out, I got someone who is extremely frugal, a good thing in the long run for me.
When you truly deeply love someone I don't see how you can not love everyone who is a part of them. I was the one who insisted, over my last boyfriend's concerns about the cost, in traveling to see his family, helped him out with child support payments when he was unemployed, and said if his adult daughter and her kids needed a place to stay we would just rent a UHaul and go pick her up. He himself was "dad" to 4 children of ex-girlfriends whose biological fathers were not in the picture even after his relationships with their mothers ended. With him it was always my son or daughter, no qualifiers, and I have also heard others talk about not using the term step, because that implies a lesser degree of kinship.
I'm sure it is cheaper to not adopt a big tent approach to family, but it is so satisfying, the opposite of loneliness. At the present time I am working to maintain long distance relationships with my late ex-husband's siblings, aunts to my son.
You can't take it with you. Just this morning I was reading Ecclesiastes 5 on that.
When you truly deeply love someone I don't see how you can not love everyone who is a part of them. I was the one who insisted, over my last boyfriend's concerns about the cost, in traveling to see his family, helped him out with child support payments when he was unemployed, and said if his adult daughter and her kids needed a place to stay we would just rent a UHaul and go pick her up. He himself was "dad" to 4 children of ex-girlfriends whose biological fathers were not in the picture even after his relationships with their mothers ended. With him it was always my son or daughter, no qualifiers, and I have also heard others talk about not using the term step, because that implies a lesser degree of kinship.
I'm sure it is cheaper to not adopt a big tent approach to family, but it is so satisfying, the opposite of loneliness. At the present time I am working to maintain long distance relationships with my late ex-husband's siblings, aunts to my son.
You can't take it with you. Just this morning I was reading Ecclesiastes 5 on that.
Kudos to you for rescuing so many people.
Plenty of people have helped me out or "rescued" me when I needed help. If you cast your bread upon waters, after many days it will come to you. What comes around goes around. Have a penny give a penny, need a penny take a penny. It's not just me, it's imbued in the best of our culture, as opposed to say geisha culture where a man is only interested in a woman for sex and clever conversation, and certainly won't get involved in the lives of children she had with other men.
Plenty of people have helped me out or "rescued" me when I needed help. If you cast your bread upon waters, after many days it will come to you. What comes around goes around. Have a penny give a penny, need a penny take a penny. It's not just me, it's imbued in the best of our culture, as opposed to say geisha culture where a man is only interested in a woman for sex and clever conversation, and certainly won't get involved in the lives of children she had with other men.
I have cast bread upon water and fish came up and ate it.
But don't get me wrong, I have helped and empowered others and continue to do so.
I just don't want a big family. And I definitely don't want kids.
I have cast bread upon water and fish came up and ate it.
And, you ate the fish.
What I meant by women seeing potential in a man was that they say how his success trajectory was going upward or likely to go upward.
Women posting here have pointed out that many evaluate far more than earning potential in determining a man's "success trajectory". Income is an easy measurement. But it is not the only one. Nor is it the only measure of a man as a potential mate.
But I think I could be a lot more popular with women at this stage in life if I was willing to take care of all the kids they had with Mr. Excitement (or with several Mr. Excitements). The problem with this arrangement (for me) is that I want to be loved firstly for who I am, not what I can provide financially and by my labor. The other thing is, I will admit, that it is a real punch to my ego -- "She had all that hot, wild fun time with Mr. Excitement; now it is the boring, laborious years with me -- working, paying bills, taking her kids to soccer games, piano lessons, chess club, etc. making dinner and packing lunches for her kids, etc."
Mr. Excitement will have gotten the passionate version of her, while I get the difficult obligations.
For various reasons completely unrelated to this topic, my ex and I never had kids. When I started dating after my divorce I knew there was a good chance I would be dating women with children. In fact, I did. One had pre-teenagers; most had kids in high school and college; yet another had one child, in college. Being a dad was out of my comfort zone so I was a bit apprehensive. But I can learn. :) And there are some secrets to this.
One is that, to the children of women you are dating, you will be "the guy who's with their mom". You will not be their father. They already have a father unless he is completely out of the scene for some reason (death, etc.), in which case they're used to mom performing both functions. Granted things are a little different for you since women are having children later in life all the time. But you just as easily could date someone your age whose kids are not far away from launch. You may become a role model for children whose father is, umm, maybe not exemplary. You don't strike me as someone who has a problem being a role model. You will, if my long experience with dates and women friends is any indication, find that moms will put their children (especially minor children) before new relationships with new guys. But that probably could be considered self-selection. :)
If things go well with mom, you may well end up driving kids to lessons and packing lunches and paying for field trips. But, if that's not seen by the kids as distasteful tasks you do because you want to be with their mom, you may well discover some truly interesting young men and women and new perspectives on our world. You may discover kids who have never gone fishing and are interested in this passion of yours. You can choose to be open to developing a relationship with them (as they choose to be open to having a relationship with you). But there definitely are rewards to that.
Finally, if I may put this delicately, the most torrid romance I ever had was with one of the moms with kids at/near college age. There was nothing boring or laborious about it. We also introduced each other to new activities. She took me to my very first pro hockey game. I introduced her to Japanese food. The relationship did not work out. But I never have considered time spent with that woman (and with her kids) wasted time, energy, or money.
Originally Posted by SteveinMN
Not saying this is your issue, UL. It's just my experience in the world.
Feel free to speculate on my issue.
Writing "your issue" was lazy verbiage on my part. But, since I don't see a smiley at the end of your sentence, OK, I'll play.
I believe strongly in The Law Of Attraction. Not everyone who wants to succeed at something will succeed, but people who are sure they're going to fail... fail. People who believe they're "cr@p magnets"... attract cr@p. Someone who goes into dating believing all they could end up with are uninteresting dried-up husks of people with numerous obligations are going to miss out on some really fulfilling relationships. Not every relationship will be marriage material; sometimes one uncovers some new facet of ourselves that we enjoy or confirms for us some value or concept on which we won't again want to compromise. We are all the sum of our experiences. The more the experience, the bigger the sum. If we only see dollar signs, though, we're likely going to have only a small sum.
People who believe they're "cr@p magnets"... attract cr@p.
So true.
Nice post, Steve.
I love your insights from the male perspective on what it's like dating/marrying a woman with kids. I would never try to talk UL into something that he seems pretty solidly determined that he has no interest in (marrying into a family). But I do think you have highlighted some of the upside of that.
My mother remarried a man 10 years younger than she. She was 38, he was 28. She had 4 kids ranging from 7-17, he had none. I don't know what was going through his head when he married her (probably something like "holy ****, WHAT am I getting myself into!!"). But I have always marveled at how this high school educated 20-something with no positive parental role models was able to delicately walk the line between being a father-figure without overstepping those "You're NOT my father!" bounds that kids are really good at defining--at least in their minds.
He was great. He was reliable, dependable, and fun. He was a like a big brother home from college. He would make us laugh. He'd set out the cereal bowls at night for the morning and when we got up there would be goofy cartoon drawings put in them. He took us to motorcycle races and drove us around Time Square. He took us on vacation to a sober family camp. When my biological father died on the streets in the Bowery and I spent the afternoon crying, he simply knocked on my door once and asked if I was OK. He was only in our lives 5 years, but they were 5 very important years. He really enriched our lives, and considering he spent the rest of his life addicted to pills and alcohol, I like to think we enriched his life for 5 years as well. Oh, and he never made much money. With no college degree, he was a draftsman at an asbestos plant. My mother was just happy the guy had a job.
So you don't have to always be "the guy that mom's with." You can be the guy who really makes a difference in the lives of a couple of kids.
But you do have to have the stomach for it, that's for sure.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.